Prince Harry's portrayal of war in 'Spare' is making headlines – but combat decision-making is more complex than his words suggest

The last few weeks have seen a steady stream of news related to the new memoir written by Prince Harry, titled “Spare^[1].” While much of the media attention has focused on his relationship with King Charles; Prince William; Catherine, princess of Wales; and Camilla, the queen consort, it is his admission to killing 25 members of the Taliban^[2] during his tour of Afghanistan that has come in for criticism from some royal commentators.

In an “era of Apaches and laptops,” Harry said^[3] he was able to say “with exactness” how many he had killed. “It seemed to me essential not to be afraid of that number. So, my number is 25. It’s not a number that fills me with satisfaction, but nor does it embarrass me.” Prince Harry also discussed his psychological mindset regarding these deaths, and how he was “programmed” to cope with them. Additionally, he said that he saw them as chess pieces in “the heat and fog of combat,” and not “as people.” He stated that he was trained to “other-ize,” and that while he recognized that as problematic, he “saw it as an unavoidable part of soldiering.”

Although it may have been intended as an honest appraisal of his own experiences in war, research shows that^[4] Harry’s words cannot convey how others in similar situations reflect on having killed in conflict.

Moreover, some have criticized the admission for sounding like counting “notches on a rifle butt^[5].” Harry, however, has accused the media of taking his words out of context. Appearing on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” he said^[6], “I think one of the most dangerous lies that they have told is that I somehow boasted about the number of people I have killed in Afghanistan.”

Outside the global consequences of his words, as a psychologist who specializes in military decision-making^[7], I am most concerned that Prince Harry projects a certainty that is not often afforded those who make decisions in the “heat and fog” of combat.

War is not a chess game

War involves operating in a hybrid environment against an adaptive enemy that often operates in and around a local civilian population. Chess is a game that involves two sides, in which all moves are predefined, and all of the information about the pieces on the board is known and visible.

For a 2019 book titled “Conflict: How Soldiers Make Impossible Decisions^[8],” Laurence Alison^[9], Joseph Moran^[10] and I interviewed soldiers about the decisions that they made during their tours in Afghanistan. What we found was that military decision-making is a rarely as simple as “bads” and “goods,” as Harry writes, or simply being programmed to remove people like chess pieces.

This research is supported by a host of other studies^[11] we have completed on high-stakes decision-making with emergency responders that paints a far more complex picture of the cognitive process and the skills required for people to make decisions amid uncertainty.

Our studies of expert decision-makers^[12] emphasize that good decison-making is an adaptive skill that requires the individuals to be able to handle complexity, juggle competing values, handle time pressure and know when to act. They also need to ask the right questions and, indeed, to know when to abandon a course of action and seek to do something new.

To present high-stakes military decisions as a two-sided game of chess creates a false impression of certainty that few soldiers are afforded when making decisions.

A further issue is the narrative of “learned detachment.” This idea minimizes the very real psychological harm that soldiers face when making complicated moral decisions at war. While the costs of post-traumatic stress disorder in those who have served in war are widely known, psychologists are focusing specifically on the forms of trauma that are caused by having to make difficult, morally laden decisions under conditions of uncertainty.

Most notably, soldiers can suffer moral injury^[13]. Moral injury is defined by Brett Litz^[14], a renowned expert on PTSD, as the result of a situation in which someone perpetrates or fails to prevent an act that transgresses a deeply held moral belief. Such injury is especially likely when an individual navigates decisions involving sacred^[15] or protected values, such as the need to protect life, which often emerge^[16] amid military conflict.

The costs of war

References

1. ^{^} Spare (www.penguinrandomhouse.com)
2. ^{^} killing 25 members of the Taliban (time.com)
3. ^{^} said (www.penguinrandomhouse.com)
4. ^{^} research shows that (doi.org)
5. ^{^} rifle butt (www.theguardian.com)
6. ^{^} he said (twitter.com)
7. ^{^} as a psychologist who specializes in military decision-making (www.uml.edu)
8. ^{^} Conflict: How Soldiers Make Impossible Decisions (doi.org)
9. ^{^} Laurence Alison (www.liverpool.ac.uk)
10. ^{^} Joseph Moran (scholar.harvard.edu)
11. ^{^} other studies (doi.org)
12. ^{^} Our studies of expert decision-makers (www.penguin.co.uk)
13. ^{^} moral injury (doi.org)
14. ^{^} Brett Litz (www.bu.edu)
15. ^{^} sacred (doi.org)
16. ^{^} often emerge (doi.org)
17. ^{^} Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images (www.gettyimages.com)
18. ^{^} 46,000 (theconversation.com)
19. ^{^} high (doi.org)